2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in the absence of dispute between the parties, or in the whole purport of the pleadings, taking into account each of the evidence of Nos. 1 to 3 (including each number):

A. The Plaintiff, as a school juristic person, is a school juristic person for the nursing department of the Chuncheon University, which is a three-year nursing junior college, and has established and operated the "Chuncheon Hospital" located in Busan Jin-gu 1, 873-5, Busan.

B. The defendant decided 14,242,40 won of the business office tax to be employed from October 2001 to June 2006 and 14,242,400 won in total, 196,791,060 won in business office tax to be used in property from 2002 to 2006, and imposed and imposed on the plaintiff on November 8, 2006.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) The Plaintiff, as a person operating a school under the Higher Education Act, falls under “non-profit business prescribed by the Presidential Decree” as provided in the main sentence of Article 245-2(1)1 of the Local Tax Act (hereinafter “Act”) and Articles 207 and 79(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and thus, is not subject to the business office tax.

Sheshelly, as the hospital affiliated with the Chuncheon University, which is the nursing and junior college established under Article 4 of the Higher Education Act, is excluded from the “profit-making business prescribed by the Presidential Decree” under the proviso of Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Act, since the medical business operated by the Chuncheon Hospital falls under Article 78-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, it is not subject to the business place tax.

Article 245-2 (1) (proviso) of the Act and Article 208 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, since the business of the Chuncheon hospital is not directly provided for profit-making business, but its main purpose and duties are non-taxable business for education purposes. Thus, it is not subject to the business office tax to be operated and its employees under the proviso of Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Act and Article 208 (1) of the Enforcement Decree

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(i) Determination as to the assertion that a non-profit business entity is

According to the proviso of Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Act, if a non-profit entrepreneur prescribed in the main sentence of Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Act is a non-taxation object of the business office tax, it can be excluded from the tax exemption object of the business office tax. Thus, it cannot be said that the business office tax for the business of the Chuncheon Hospital is non-taxation only on the ground that the plaintiff is a non-profit entrepreneur who operates a school under the Higher Education Act and operates a school under the Higher Education Act for the purpose of public business as prescribed in the main sentence of Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Act. Thus, the plaintiff

Judgment on the argument that she is not a profitable business

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted as the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5521, Jul. 26, 2002, etc.).

Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Act provides that the business place tax related to the “profit-making business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” shall not be excluded from the subject of the imposition of the business place tax, while excluding the non-profit entrepreneur for the purpose of public service business from the subject of the imposition of the business place tax. Article 208 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the above “profit-making business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” refers to the business as prescribed by the provisions of Article 78-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 78-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the “profit-making business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” refers to the profit-making business as prescribed by the provisions of Article 3 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 78-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the “medical business operated by an affiliated hospital of a medical school, etc. established pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of the Higher Education Act” shall not be deemed a profit-making business.

However, Article 208 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which is delegated by the proviso of Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Act, uses only Article 78-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and does not invoke Article 78-2 (2) of the Act, since Article 78-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act applies only to acquisition tax other than business place tax, it cannot be viewed that it is applicable only to business place tax. In particular, since almost similar provisions of Article 78-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which correspond to business place tax, are provided for in Article 245-2 (1) 5 of the Act, Article 209 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 208-2 (1) of the Act, which provides that the scope of universities excluded from the business place tax imposed separately from the business place tax, the business place tax is imposed directly and clearly under the premise that the business place tax imposed is imposed on the business owner under Article 28-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

【Judgment on the argument that the primary purpose and duties are non-taxable projects

The proviso of Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Act provides that "pro rata property to profit-making business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and to be employed" shall be excluded from the object of non-taxation of business place tax. Article 208 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "pro rata property to be used for profit-making business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means the pro rata property to be imposed on the basis of the business office and employees directly provided only for profit-making business, but in this case, when a non-taxable business and a profit-making business are concurrently used or an employee is concurrently employed, the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff corporation provides that the plaintiff corporation shall conduct medical services for the operation of the school established and operated by the plaintiff corporation under Article 32, and it is recognized that the management of the Chuncheon hospital is one of the main business for profit-making business of the patient, and that the school's business office education is only one of the main business offices of the hospital's own or most of the affiliated businesses of the hospital's affiliated businesses, and it is recognized that the school's main business office education is not only one of the hospital's affiliated businesses.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

· Sub-determination

Therefore, since the plaintiff is not a non-taxable business operator under Article 245-2 (1) of the Act, the disposition of this case by the defendant against the plaintiff is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)